I propose we setup #linuxtv-without-jews on feenode and coordinate our
efforts to take over those fools who run the real LinuxTV scam.
-tc
On 7/22/07, Uwe Bugla <uwe.bugla at gmx.de> wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 22. Juli 2007 12:41:56 schrieb Johannes Stezenbach:
> > On Sun, Jul 22, 2007, Uwe Bugla wrote:
> > > As announced I've built a revised tarball plus a Debian package of the
> > > current dvb-apps repository, implying your patchset (i. e. human readable
> > > characters as a switch for szap, tzap and czap.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately both packages were rejected without giving reason by the
> > > list moderator of linux-dvb at linuxtv.org.> >
> > If you look at the reject messages, they should say:
> >
> > Reason: Message body is too big: 404226 bytes with a limit of 60 KB
> > and
> > Reason: Message body is too big: 517891 bytes with a limit of 60 KB
> >
> > The limit is there to protect people who don't have broadband
> > connectivity, and to protect the list server (with ~2000 list
> > subscribers, these two mails would have caused ~1.8 GByte of traffic).
> >
> >
> > Johannes
> >
>> Sounds logical. But the main reason you unfortunately forgot to mention:
>> The limit is there to protect the "highly motivated illustrious" linuxtv
> gatekeepers from doing additional good work in order to share good efforts
> all around the world.
>> I still got my own experiences and views on the difference between what real
> sophisticated maintainership means in practice @linuxtv.org in comparison to
> the rest of the world-wide linux community. In fact there is a big
> difference.
>> For example, if I read comments like "you should first ask whether someone
> intends to pick it up (by Christoph Pfister in this specific example) the
> knife in my pocket opens.
> A real sophisticated maintainer picks up such efforts like P. van Gaans patch
> set and merges them without making any noise.
>> Above that, the filter timeout problem in connection with "scan" still remains
> unsolved (wasn't it you, Johannes, who once wrote the scan utility?).
>> Why is the scan result still such a drag? Why are the scan results so
> unreliable? Why are there channels missing in the final result?
> Is it a driver issue or an application issue?
> And who can help? Who has got the clue to fix that?
> And why does this problem not appear within kaffeine's channel scan?
>> I'm not expecting any answer or fix for that problem - I can help myself.
> But I would like to know whether I am the only one to have that problem with
> the scan utility.
>> Uwe
>> > _______________________________________________
> > linux-dvb mailing list
> > linux-dvb at linuxtv.org> > http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb>>>> _______________________________________________
> linux-dvb mailing list
>linux-dvb at linuxtv.org>http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb>